5. Implementation and Delivery Plan

Once again local councils have let is residents down, within a very short space of time all previous promises have now been forgotten. There does not appear to be onbe word in this document about RESIDENTS and teh effect this expansion has on those living with this noise on a daily basis. You now want to extend the runaway further to invite more airlines and bigger planes, this will only lead to one thing more flights! something you said in your original documents you would not increase. Yet you make no mention of this in these documents, again keeping residents in the dark.

There is no mention of the damgerous conditions at the roundabout at the bottom of Manners way caused by continual traffic jams by vehicles trying to enter the airport and those trying to use the business park.

Objections were raise din thge first place about the burden on the A127 which agin were ignored and now ther is a want to increase traffic volumes again.

This airport is in the middle of a hpousing estate and had made peoples life a misery, No to further expansion!

Figures 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 show the runway and Public Safety Zones (PSZs) prior to the expansion of the runway. They are therefore inaccurate and do not reflect the current situation.
Figure 5.2 is of particular concern as the orange hatched area indicating the location of the Nestuda Way Business Park will be within the current PSZ. National Planning Policy dictates that no new build should take place within the PSZ and over time, the area should be cleared of occupation.
CAA guidelines relating to dangerous obstructions within the PSZ are already being ignored and no further new obstructions in the form of a business park should be constructed. We want the CAA to bring an end to the use of the extended runway to prevent continued breach of their guidelines.

Why build on green belt land when there is an existing business park off of Cherry Orchard Way that is only 30% used. Why relocate a well established rugby club when it is fine where it is. Why mention the airport work when it has already been completed.

Overall, C and S Associates support the Implementation and Delivery Plan for Project 1A: Saxon Business Park. However the proposed 'infrastructure improvements' are potentially onerous and could affect the viability of a scheme for the site, as such it is considered that the Implementation and Delivery Plan is unsound.

In relation to the risk associated with the different ownership, C and S Associates are committed to working with the Council and other landowners to bring the site forward for development.

With regard to the potential remediation costs, C and S Associates support the recognition that there are potentially significant costs associated with remediation. There needs to be a pragmatic approach to ensure that the scheme is viable.

In relation to the infrastructure requirements, it is not clear who will be required to deliver these, and it will important to be flexible to ensure that the development is achievable. The requirements for new open space and providing a new access into Cherry Orchard Jubilee Country Park and a visitor centre appear to be onerous. It is not considered that they are necessary to make the Saxon Business Park acceptable in planning terms and it is important that the costs associated with these are not prohibitively high.

Figures 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 show the runway and Public Safety Zones (PSZs) prior to the expansion of the runway. They are therefore inaccurate and do not reflect the current situation.

Figure 5.2 is of particular concern as the orange hatched area indicating the location of the Nestuda Way Business Park will be within the current PSZ. National Planning Policy dictates that no new build should take place within the PSZ and over time, the area should be cleared of occupation.



CAA guidelines relating to dangerous obstructions within the PSZ are already being ignored and no further new obstructions in the form of a business park should be constructed. We want the CAA to bring an end to the use of the extended runway to prevent continued breach of their guidelines.

Figures 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 show the runway and Public Safety Zones (PSZs) prior to the expansion of the runway. They are therefore inaccurate and do not reflect the current situation.
Figure 5.2 is of particular concern as the orange hatched area indicating the location of the Nestuda Way Business Park will be within the current PSZ. National Planning Policy dictates that no new build should take place within the PSZ and over time, the area should be cleared of occupation.

CAA guidelines relating to dangerous obstructions within the PSZ are already being ignored and no further new obstructions in the form of a business park should be constructed. We want the CAA to bring an end to the use of the extended runway to prevent continued breach of their guidelines.

This element of the JAAP is too confusing in current form to comment on easily

5. Areas for Change

The 2nd paragraph on Page 18 of the DPD indicates 'opportunities for new public open space...' and states 'the JAAP has been subjected to independent sustainability appraisal...'.

Page 20 of the DPD proposes agricultural land 'on Eastwoodbury Lane' and 'allotments on Rochford Road' be utilised under Policy ENV3 as a 'new public open space'. It also states the allotment area is of 'low amenity value'.

Does the term 'low amenity value' indicate contempt of the Government's Allotment Act of the 1920's requiring Councils to provide land to its residents for this purpose?

The Government announced that 2012 was the first year ever that Britain has been a net importer of wheat. The agricultural land is growing wheat this year (2013). The allotments produce a large range of plants enabling biodiversity. The DPD makes no reference to these human life enabling actions, hence the 'sustainability appraisal' must be flawed and valueless.

Failure to address the implications of sustainability means that the DPD is unbalanced and unlawful.